What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[RestlessSoul]

Again….
All in the same location.


The point of the scenario is that it IS dependent on the events arranged within the agreed objective time phenomenon that is shared and accepted by all involved.
To highlight that their perception of the passage of time is admitted even by them to be erroneous, and as such less “true” than that which would and is perceived by a neutral observer.

The relativity of time near massive objects, when approaching near light speeds, or when observed from distant ends of a universe is completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed and as such is an unnecessary trip of into the weeds and justifying it being characterized as a far reach.

Nice try though?
If that’s all you have….it’s really weak tea!

It’s not all I have, since you ask. Temporal facts are not absolute, they depend on a frame of reference, but forget the metaphysics of time. I won’t labour the point. Where your scenario really breaks down, is in the assumption that a neutral observer is the arbiter of objective reality. There is no possibility of any observer being neutral - for the act of observation is itself an interaction, therefore not neutral.

 

[Augustus]

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

Here you seem to be suggesting that the benfit of knowing the truth is that you can influence what people think.

On most things it is largely inconsequential what is true, but simply what others think is true. This is why we try to persuade them to believe what we believe. A truth that only we know might give us a sense of personal satisfaction, but then again, may equally lead to frustration.

Like the Greek myth of Cassandra, she was granted the gift of prophecy, but cursed that no one would believe her. That she alone knew the 'truth' was the curse.

But with ancient historical issues like the one above there may be an objective reality behind the events described, but this is ultimately unknowable.

All you can do is make probabilistic arguments either way based on ambiguous evidence. On most issues this evidence is not approached neutrally either, but based on ideological and methodological assumptions.

A Sunni, a Quranist and an atheist don't analyse the relationship between the Quran, Suannah and Muhammad's objective historical existence the same way, the bring their own assumptions to the table, and these assumptions tend to lead to a very different interpretation of the evidence.

Not to mention that humans don't really care all that much about truth, only when it is convenient and doesn't challenge their deeply held beliefs.

No matter how much lip-service someone pays to their own sense of rationality, they still easily fall victim to emotionally appealing falsehoods. We spot it easily in others, but are usually blind to when we do it (which we all do).

This is especially true when the evidence is inconclusive (such as the Aisha example), we usually just find reasons to keep on believing what we wanted in the first place.

Most things are really just battles for opinions; for whose subjective preferences will gain preeminence.

 

[firedragon]

Here you seem to be suggesting that the benfit of knowing the truth is that you can influence what people think.

No. Influencing can be done by lying as well. Sometimes lies can overpower truth. But that does not mean the truth does not matter.

On most things it is largely inconsequential what is true, but simply what others think is true. This is why we try to persuade them to believe what we believe. A truth that only we know might give us a sense of personal satisfaction, but then again, may equally lead to frustration.

Like the Greek myth of Cassandra, she was granted the gift of prophecy, but cursed that no one would believe her. That she alone knew the 'truth' was the curse.

But with ancient historical issues like the one above there may be an objective reality behind the events described, but this is ultimately unknowable.

All you can do is make probabilistic arguments either way based on ambiguous evidence. On most issues this evidence is not approached neutrally either, but based on ideological and methodological assumptions.

A Sunni, a Quranist and an atheist don't analyse the relationship between the Quran, Suannah and Muhammad's objective historical existence the same way, the bring their own assumptions to the table, and these assumptions tend to lead to a very different interpretation of the evidence.

Not to mention that humans don't really care all that much about truth, only when it is convenient and doesn't challenge their deeply held beliefs.

No matter how much lip-service someone pays to their own sense of rationality, they still easily fall victim to emotionally appealing falsehoods. We spot it easily in others, but are usually blind to when we do it (which we all do).

This is especially true when the evidence is inconclusive (such as the Aisha example), we usually just find reasons to keep on believing what we wanted in the first place.

Most things are really just battles for opinions; for whose subjective preferences will gain preeminence.

Great. But the question is, does the quest or explanation of truth not matter and what people think only matters?

That's the question.

 

[Augustus]

Great. But the question is, does the quest or explanation of truth not matter and what people think only matters?

That's the question.

That was the answer...

 

[firedragon]

That was the answer...

Thanks.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

This whole argument is based on the presumption that synchronicity equals validity. It doesn't. It just equals synchronicity. No one's perception of time is "invalid" because time is a perceptual phenomena. It doesn't exist apart from our perception of it. That's why we have to invent machines to impose standards to synchronize our perceptions of it.

Wow!

No one's perception of time is "invalid" because time is a perceptual phenomena. It doesn't exist apart from our perception of it.

Are you suggesting that time is an illusion?

That's why we have to invent machines to impose standards to synchronize our perceptions of it.

Actually no, we invented clocks (the machines you’re referring to) to more accurately measure the passage of time (than say a sun dial or shadow clock) in order to standardize the incremental passage of time not skewed by seasonal variations or known subjective inadequacies of our perceptions.
Thus rendering the resulting information to be more valid (again…solid; just; well-founded).

This validity of which was shared by Sally, Frank, Sue, Bob, the rest of the travelers, the train company, the society at large, and the entire global community, etc.
Thus the presumption is justified.

No one's perception of time is "invalid" because time is a perceptual phenomena.

I never said their perceptions were “invalid”.
I suggested that their perceptions were LESS valid (again…solid; just; well-founded) since they were known to be skewered by subjective emotional states.
Thus less true compared to the accepted passage of time as measured by their watches and the station’s clock (which they all defer to as an agreed standard of time).

 

[Dao Hao Now]

It’s not all I have, since you ask. Temporal facts are not absolute, they depend on a frame of reference, but forget the metaphysics of time. I won’t labour the point. Where your scenario really breaks down, is in the assumption that a neutral observer is the arbiter of objective reality. There is no possibility of any observer being neutral - for the act of observation is itself an interaction, therefore not neutral.

The wristwatches and clock are in fact neutral….the have no bias.

 

[PureX]

Wow!

Are you suggesting that time is an illusion?

Again, your use of the term "illusion" wants to suggest that it's invalid/not "real". This obsession with validity comes from the assumption that there can only be one 'truly true' truth and that we should seek it because any other concept or perception of truth is "invalid".

Actually no, we invented clocks (the machines you’re referring to) to more accurately measure the passage of time (than say a sun dial or shadow clock) in order to standardize the incremental passage of time not skewed by seasonal variations or known subjective inadequacies of our perceptions.

We invented clocks to synchronize our interactions with each other and with the environment we live in. You are calling synchronicity, "accuracy". Again suggesting that this determines "validity".

I never said their perceptions were “invalid”.
I suggested that their perceptions were LESS valid (again…solid; just; well-founded) since they were known to be skewered by subjective emotional states.

But time is not defined by synchronicity, which is why we experience it differently from each other in the first place. And why we had to invent machines and arbitrary scales of measurement to help us sync up with each other interactively. If anything were to be labeled "invalid" regarding time it's this mechanically imposed, overlay.

 

[BrightShadow]

People who are given voice have to use God's book and the words of his sent ones together, or else, it's just an opinion. They should also prove their interpretation is correct and know that God's sent ones would have explained the true interpretation as well.

That is prophet's job. No new prophet during our life time! What do you think?
The rest of us (not prophets) can only point toward right direction but cannot prove anything beyond doubt! I believe there are multiple ways to get to same location!
Many questions are unanswered and you cannot provide answers to everything - no matter how hard you try!
Interpretation can be subjective! Your interpretation could differ from mine and from another. No language can describe something with 100% accuracy.
Even a picture can tell you different stories. Some see Mona Lisa smiling and some frowning!

 

[firedragon]

Interpretation can be subjective! Your interpretation could differ from mine and from another. No language can describe something with 100% accuracy.

Let's say "interpretations could be subjective". What is your suggestion?

I have seen many many people who say this. But most of them who say this have never tried to look at what it says whatsoever. This statement about interpretations is generally, most often than not, an apologetic to reject it totally. Even with out analysing it, giving it thought, looking at hermeneutics objectively, and then making a decision. The cart is sent before the horse. Reject first, then say "interpretations could be subjective".

This is the general evangelistic claim of many.

 

[Link]

That is prophet's job. No new prophet during our life time! What do you think?
The rest of us (not prophets) can only point toward right direction but cannot prove anything beyond doubt! I believe there are multiple ways to get to same location!
Many questions are unanswered and you cannot provide answers to everything - no matter how hard you try!
Interpretation can be subjective! Your interpretation could differ from mine and from another. No language can describe something with 100% accuracy.
Even a picture can tell you different stories. Some see Mona Lisa smiling and some frowning!

The Nabi (Prophet) job is to channel God's book. The Messenger (which most Anbiya/Prophets are) job is to convey the message clearly to people.

Disputes are to be referred to God's book and explanation of the Messenger. The problem arises that falsehood could be attributed in theory to both.

The final revelation however was finalized to protect the revelation from distortion. The message however in terms of the hadiths, has falsehood attributed to it.

My view is while for almost every hadith that says X, you can find a hadith that says not X, you can refer hadiths to Quran, but also that Quran should not be interpreted without hadiths to support it.

The reason is because the Messenger would have explained it and not left something unexplained, and because the Quran is not a normal book, but somehow all words of guidance from Mohammad (s) and his family (a) can be referred back to it.

Our job as followers of the household and Quran, is to make sure we don't say things about God's religion and judgment unless we are sure and if we are sure, to do so with proofs.

That said, knowledge is built upon knowledge, and so what may be provable to someone because of their degree of knowledge is yet to be proven to another.

The hadiths and Quran is layered in levels of understanding.

 

[Truth in love]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

As a rule few actually care for evidence. Only evidence for what we want tends to be given any serious weight. I’ve shared detailed evidence of things many times that was not what people wanted reality to be and it is almost always dismissed out of hand. I’ve seen this problem often among believers and non believers alike.

 

[firedragon]

As a rule few actually care for evidence. Only evidence for what we want tends to be given any serious weight. I’ve shared detailed evidence of things many times that was not what people wanted reality to be and it is almost always dismissed out of hand. I’ve seen this problem often among believers and non believers alike.

If any kind of evidence is dismissed at the outset, it's either bigotry or an ad hominem fallacy of some sort. Many do engage with it. What's strange is that the person engaging in it has no clue he or she has this bias or fallacious logic in real life activity. Yes, it is done by so called believers and non-believers both.

 

[PureX]

If any kind of evidence is dismissed at the outset, it's either bigotry or an ad hominem fallacy of some sort. Many do engage with it. What's strange is that the person engaging in it has no clue he or she has this bias or fallacious logic in real life activity. Yes, it is done by so called believers and non-believers both.

Actually, what it is, is that people define "evidence" by what they already think they know to be so. So that if you are resenting them evidence for something they do not already think is so, they tend to view what you are offering as 'invalid evidence' because it doesn't fit with what they already think they know to be so.

What we call "reality" is a giant bias that dictates what we expect reality to look like, and drives how we interpret everything we encounter. And science/empiricism does almost nothing to mitigate this bias.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, what it is, is that people define "evidence" by what they already think they know to be so. So that if you are resenting them evidence for something they do not already think is so, they tend to view what you are offering as 'invalid evidence' because it doesn't fit with what they already think they know to be so.

What we call "reality" is a giant bias that dictates what we expect reality to look like, and drives how we interpret everything we encounter. And science/empiricism does almost nothing to mitigate this bias.

PUreX. You asked me to explain something. I asked you a question. You did not answer. Let me give you that post here so that you can respond. That's how decent conversations take place. Post Number #78

If I tell you that by my side, right now, next to me, there is a married bachelor, what would you say?

 

[BrightShadow]

Let's say "interpretations could be subjective". What is your suggestion?

I have seen many many people who say this. But most of them who say this have never tried to look at what it says whatsoever. This statement about interpretations is generally, most often than not, an apologetic to reject it totally. Even with out analysing it, giving it thought, looking at hermeneutics objectively, and then making a decision. The cart is sent before the horse. Reject first, then say "interpretations could be subjective".

This is the general evangelistic claim of many.

Why do you think there are so many sects? So, many denominations? If everyone was interpreting the same way - then would we have that issue?
Of course one should do all that you mentioned before rejecting anything.
If we have a living, verifiable and genuine prophet leading us then we can have him explain things to us but we don't have the luxury of that.

So, what is our next best choice?

1) We can do the hard work ourselves and learn the language (in question) and interpret and see things for ourselves (subjective).
or
2) We can check multiple other people's work who have done the hard work and figure out who has done an authentic (valid) job and follow their opinion and hope its impartial and factual.

 

[BrightShadow]

The Nabi (Prophet) job is to channel God's book. The Messenger (which most Anbiya/Prophets are) job is to convey the message clearly to people.

Disputes are to be referred to God's book and explanation of the Messenger. The problem arises that falsehood could be attributed in theory to both.

The final revelation however was finalized to protect the revelation from distortion. The message however in terms of the hadiths, has falsehood attributed to it.

My view is while for almost every hadith that says X, you can find a hadith that says not X, you can refer hadiths to Quran, but also that Quran should not be interpreted without hadiths to support it.

The reason is because the Messenger would have explained it and not left something unexplained, and because the Quran is not a normal book, but somehow all words of guidance from Mohammad (s) and his family (a) can be referred back to it.

Our job as followers of the household and Quran, is to make sure we don't say things about God's religion and judgment unless we are sure and if we are sure, to do so with proofs.

That said, knowledge is built upon knowledge, and so what may be provable to someone because of their degree of knowledge is yet to be proven to another.

The hadiths and Quran is layered in levels of understanding.

Why do you think there are so many sects and so many opinions? All Sects have their respective scholars and the so-called scholars don't agree with each other about many things! Why is that?

In my opinion - religion need not to be so complicated. Messages that need to be understood only via Ahadith that were collected centuries later - maybe not the messages we should be concentrating on. (Just my opinion).

The basic message can be attained without much difficulty. What is most important to God? I wrote about it in some thread!
Maintain belief in One God, lead a righteous life and believe on the judgment day. If we can do that - then everything else may fall into place! Some religions have basic rituals, that is not that hard to figure out. So, why worry about something like - the meaning of Alif, Laam and Meem? Is there a need? Why search through the Ahadith and come up with 10 different theories? If information is not there .... it's not there! What is comprehendible is enough! IMO

 

[firedragon]

Why do you think there are so many sects?

Politics.

All Sects have their respective scholars and the so-called scholars don't agree

So because people disagree, drop them all?

As I said, it's a usual evangelical apologetic of those who wish to "drop them all".

Cheers.

 

[PureX]

PUreX. You asked me to explain something. I asked you a question. You did not answer. Let me give you that post here so that you can respond. That's how decent conversations take place. Post Number #78

If I tell you that by my side, right now, next to me, there is a married bachelor, what would you say?

Why would I say anything?

 

[firedragon]

Why would I say anything?

You didn't understand that it was a question. It's impossible that someone does not understand that and a person with any kind of thinking prowess would answer with a "why would I say such a thing".

So thanks for responding. Have a great day.